He went on: “The answer is to promote views that are open-minded and tolerant towards those who are different, and to fight the formal, informal and internet propagation of closed-minded intolerance.
“In the 21st century, education is a security issue.” SOURCE: The West needs a global strategy to deal with terrorism threat, says Tony Blair | World | News | Daily Express.
Even though I did not usually agree with Tony Blair’s stand with Mr. Bush on the invasion of Iraq, I always respected his intellect on other issues. Much more so than Mr. Bush. The more I study the history of the U.S. the more I am convinced that our acceptance of our diversity is what keeps us away from all the sectarian violence that seems to dominate much of the rest of the world.
Part of the accepting, maybe even celebrating, our diversity is recognizing that we all have a right to our own opinions and our own versions of spirituality as long as they don’t impact others rights to do the same thing. We, thankfully, seem to be almost unique in that regard. But regrettably that tolerance seems to be frayed in recent years. Let us pray that intolerance is not getting its grip on us as it has so many other countries in the world.
3 thoughts on “Religious Tolerance When Dealing With Extremeism…”
Where does one person’s rights end and the other’s begin? That seems to be the issue today.
If the KKK comes into your bakery and asks you to bake a celebration cake for their ceremony- do you have the right to say no?
If you work in a hospital that practices something that you feel ends the lives of the elderly, on purpose, in that hospital- do you have the right to decline? Does the hospital? Should the society have to pay for it because some people feel it is a good thing?
Should polygamist marriages be allowed? Should collectives be given the same rights as traditional marriage?
If we know that certain genes cause certain bad things to happen, should those people be allowed to have children?
The lists go on and on.
Does tolerance only relate to one set of views?
The division in our society is not over simple Wall Street issues. They are over morality.
As usual Janette, you are taking this post to a completely different plane. Accepting others rights to differing opinions is not about giving up morality. It is simply accepting that others have their right to their maybe different version. You say it is all about morality, but whose version of morality? Yours to the exclusion of others? (please realize that these questions are general in nature and not attacks on you personally).
When we become intolerant of the right for others having differing views from our own we are giving up the very bedrock of our form of government. I really don’t want to live in a country where my morality is dictated by others. If I did I would go to Iran or Israel or one of the many other theocracies in the world. Accepting diversity is what the U.S. is all about.
Another plane indeed 🙂
A person has their own morality and no society should dictate it. That negates law, doesn’t it?
Why do we base things on the Ten Commandments?
When does a person become a person? Some people selectively elimiate people – young and old- who are deemed of no value. Who chooses that if the person does not have awareness?
The questions I ask are ones that are discussed all the time within my children’s circles.
Which morality? Any morality? No morality?